BetterWithCheddar

I don't disagree, but most kids get 40+ hours of mixed gender interaction each week through school. I'm not sure a 1-hour, single-gender Scout meeting each week leads to unacceptable social norms. In fact, I think it may be complimentary in that it gives them a reprieve from constant social pressures. I'm not looking to re-hash old arguments. I've been generally supportive of the membership changes from the past decade. Coed Scouting works fine for Cubs and the Senior Scout programs; however, we're denying kids a development opportunity if we don't at least offer them the OPTION of single-gender Scout Troops. Middle school is rough.

My son's Pack held its first Pack Meeting on Tuesday. Officially, we had a kick-off and informational meeting in September, but this was the first one with a true program. We elected to cover the Bobcat Adventure in its entirety since it's required for all grades. In hindsight, this was a terrible idea. It felt like night school. To compound the issue, we had two failing Packs rolled into our own healthy Pack - this brought our total Scout Count from 45 to 85 and our leader count from 8 to 9. My son's Wolf den, which had averaged 6-7 kids during Lions and Tigers, now stands at 20. Mercifully, one of the new parents offered to assist in an unofficial capacity.

Scouts: "We promote conservation." Also Scouts: 'If we sell this camp, we can put in new toilets at our other camp!"

"Cub Scout Pack" vs. "Scout Troop" is the cleanest delineator today, IMHO. When I'm talking with the Cubs, I may say something like "When you're a little older and join a Scout Troop, ..." I'll often refer to the BSA/SA as the "national organization."

Thanks, but I'm not sure that really helps. The BSA moniker is no more, yet we still brand our flagship program as "Scouts BSA?" (never mind the fact that "Scouts BSA" wasn't a particularly strong re-brand to begin with).

In defense of those parents, I don't think the BSA (SA?) has done a particularly good job of branding itself in the public sphere, considering those of us closer to the program still struggle. I still do not know how to refer to the classic Scouting program formerly for boys ages 11-18. We used to distinguish between "Cub Scouts" and "Boy Scouts." Then it was "Cub Scouts" and "Scouts BSA." Now, I guess it would be "Cub Scouts" and just "Scouts?" That's confusing because Cub Scouts are also Scouts, are they not?

If I could wave a magic wand, I would: Shorten the Cub Scout program by moving 5th graders to the traditional Scouting program. Webelos then becomes the transition / capstone year after Lions, Tigers, Wolves, and Bears. Yes, Kindergartners probably lack the maturity to fit with the rest of the Cubs, but SA will lose youth to other programs if they don't recruit kids when they begin elementary school. Keep it simple for the Lions and Tigers. Then layer-on more outdoor activities for the Wolves and Bears. Shorten the traditional Scouting program to grades 5-8. Middle school has traditionally served as the "core" Scouting experience anyway. This cuts down on repetitiveness and helps mitigate the YP issues associated with combining children of wide age ranges (or the expectation that older Scouts "babysit" the younger ones). Combine the resources of the OA and Venturing to create a new Senior Scout program that blends elements of cheerful service, comradery, and outdoor adventure. Each district would sponsor a Senior Scout unit (similar to an OA chapter). Senior Scouts who earned the Life Rank with their troops could continue to work on their Eagle rank until age 18. Create a limited set of Senior Scout awards to keep the youth with a high need for achievement engaged. Use this pool of Scouts to help staff council and district events (but not free manual labor).

Growing up, there was always a canoe, kayak, and pedal boat at my parents' cabin. Kids were allowed to use them as they pleased. There were no concerns about buddies or life jackets (you had to be a good swimmer, but we used an honor system). When I attended my first Boy Scout summer camp, I was perturbed by the amount of restrictions placed on rowboat and canoes usage. Today, it still seems like a little much (but from a liability standpoint, I get it). That said, I'm shocked the BSA allows motorized watercrafts on property today. The "bronze gods" on the waterfront staff will scream at kids for not kneeling in canoes and yet those same staffers are allowed to pilot torpedoes.

The numbers get worse when you consider how the US population has grown over time. BSA is currently at ~20% of its 1980 membership, but adjusting for the change in population over the last 45 years, it's really about ~14% of its 1980 membership. 1980: Membership = 4.3 million US Population = 223 million % of Population in BSA = 1.9% 1990 Membership = 4.0 million US Population = 248 million % of Population in BSA = 1.6% 2000: Membership = 3.4 million US Population = 282 million % of Population in BSA = 1.2% 2010: Membership = 2.7 million US Population = 311 million % of Population in BSA = 0.9% 2019: Membership = 2.0 million US Population = 334 million % of Population in BSA = 0.6% 2023: Membership = 0.9 million US Population = 339 million % of Population in BSA = 0.3%

I read this twice and I'm still not really sure what it means.

I struggle mightily with the broader inclusion topic. And please, let me clarify, I've been supportive of the membership changes of the past decade. Further, I value decency above all else. Yet we try so hard to not offend and accommodate everyone (particularly a small number of boys with behavioral issues) that it weakens the program for the boys that have traditionally benefited from it. Then we wonder why membership has dropped from 3 million to 1 million over the last 20 years and we resolve to be even more inclusive.

I've recently been doing some planning for my son's Wolf Den and am finding that I appreciate the streamlined requirements. It will make our Den meetings a little more open-ended and allow me to tailor them to the kids' interests and the activities available in our region. Further, since there is overlap year-over-year, we may dedicate some Pack meetings to addressing requirements for all grades. This should help weaker Packs who lack suitable Den Leaders - now they can lean more heavily on the leaders who have been keeping the program alive. My only gripe (and it's a big one): The program is just too long. 6 years of Cubs is a lot. They should have used the re-vamp to push 5th graders to Scouts BSA and make the 4th Grade Webelos program the capstone / transition year. The kids like identifying with an animal and color every year, but we lose a little branding polish when we switch to "Webelos" and then "AOL."

Speaking of legal issues, this story popped up in multiple news feeds this past week. The boy was on a jet ski and was struck by another jet ski owned by the local scout council and operated by a camp staffer. Very sad. Tennessee parents sue Boy Scouts after death of 10-year-old son (usatoday.com)

We need to re-think the current council camp model and that process should extend beyond "well, we really need to sell this camp so we can put in new flush toilets and a welcome center at our other camp." Since my son joined Cubs a few years ago, I've started to favor the idea of smaller camps that are close to each council's population center(s). They wouldn't require major facilities - just a single multi-purpose office / health lodge / storm shelter. Kids' don't need a lot to be happy. Get them outside and let their imaginations take over. It will be much easier to recruit volunteers to staff weekend programs when they don't have to drive 2 hours to get to camp. Youth participation would likely increase if a mother could drop off her child at Scouts on her way to Target.

Are we really talking about trading a 1,300-acre camp for 8 shower houses?